Re: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-06-19 17:18, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> apology for this belated reply. My spring teaching finally came to an
> end, hope I have more time to catch up RRG now
> 
>> |> |The point of my argument is that the only possible mechanism is
>> |> |portability.
>> |>
>> |>
>> |> Provably incorrect: many organizations are very happy
>> |sitting behind
>> |> a NAT
>> |> box.  It provides excellent addressing isolation.
>> |
>> |hmm, aren't addresses behind a NAT box portable addresses?
>>
>> No, they're usually private (RFC 1918) addresses.
>>
>> Tony
> 
> 
> my interpretation of "portable", or not, is by the measure of whether
> one needs to renumber when changing providers.
> By this definition, 1918 addresses are indeed "portable"
> 
> someone explained to me privately that Robin's definition of "portable"
> is equivalent to PI prefixes.
> 
> To me a PI prefix has 2 separable meanings: globally uniqueness, and
> portability.

In any case, it seems to be a solution, not a requirement.

    Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg